Post #116,140
8/31/03 10:41:49 PM
|
1 in 6 manuf. jobs gone despite "recovery"
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2464-2003Aug29.html|http://www.washingto...64-2003Aug29.html]
I think an economic calamity on the level of the Great Depression is coming. The entire structure of our middle-class society is being rapidly eroded. What will people do?
The only hope is protectionism, tariffs, shut the doors and do it all here, and damn the rest of the world.
-drl
|
Post #116,201
9/1/03 11:04:24 AM
|
Disagree on one point, Ross
The only hope is protectionism, tariffs, shut the doors and do it all here, and damn the rest of the world. It's not the only hope, Ross. The other last, best hope is complete and utter defeat in Nov04 of the entire shitferbrains outfit allegedly running things (into the ground) in Washington. Otherwise, what will ensue will make the Depression look like the Dot-Com boom in comparison. jb4
Boy I'd like to see those words on a PR banner behind [Treasury Secretary John] Snow at the podium:
Jobs and Growth: Just Wait.
John J. Andrew, unemployed programmer; see jobforjohn.com
|
Post #116,202
9/1/03 11:17:05 AM
|
Hey!
Stop getting Washington confused with Washington, D.C. - We've got enough of our own problems around here... ;)
In that final hour, when each breath is a struggle to take, and you are looking back over your life's accomplishments, which memories would you treasure? The empires you built, or the joy you spread to others?
Therin lies the true measure of a man.
|
Post #116,219
9/1/03 1:16:51 PM
|
Oooops! My Bad!
But you gotta admit, that the only real difference between the shitferbrains outfit allegedly running things (into the ground) in Washington D.C. and the shitferbrains outfit allegedly running things (into the ground) in Washington State, is that we get to go through the motions of voting the former out of office in around a year.
jb4
Boy I'd like to see those words on a PR banner behind [Treasury Secretary John] Snow at the podium:
Jobs and Growth: Just Wait.
John J. Andrew, unemployed programmer; see jobforjohn.com
|
Post #116,221
9/1/03 1:22:25 PM
|
:D
|
Post #116,232
9/1/03 2:34:40 PM
|
Not likely
The odds of the Green party sweeping both parties out of power is rather slim.
Replacing Bush with a Democrat isn't going to help much if any. They are all pro-Freetrade and pro-WTO. Heck, Bush is actually more protectionist then most of the Democratic canidates.
Jay
|
Post #116,226
9/1/03 1:45:45 PM
|
The sig is the message
The only hope is protectionism, tariffs, shut the doors and do it all here, and damn the rest of the world. Hm. Reminds me of what happened to farming in the late 1800's. I guess we could all go back to that. "There's a set of rules that anything that was in the world when you were born is normal and natural. Anything invented between when you were 15 and 35 is new and revolutionary and exciting, and you'll probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're 35 is against the natural order of things." Douglas Adams
|
Post #116,233
9/1/03 2:39:50 PM
|
Better solution
The US should be helping other countries to develop strong unions, civil rights movements and internal buisness strength.
This will drive up local wages, which has the double advantage of making moving jobs there less favorable and giving them more money to buy our goods.
Jay
|
Post #116,236
9/1/03 3:02:40 PM
|
That is, of course, the solution . .
. . but it will take time.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #116,239
9/1/03 3:37:00 PM
|
dunno
Why wouldn't world secession work?
-drl
|
Post #116,256
9/1/03 7:36:23 PM
|
Cause turnabout is fair play
If we raise stiff trade barriers against other countries, they will do the same to us. That would destroy our economy.
In the long run, it might work. The US is large enough that we could develop based on our internal resources. But there would be a huge depression getting there.
Jay
|
Post #116,242
9/1/03 4:08:44 PM
|
Er.. we'd have to 'believe' in those things here - first (?)
|
Post #116,255
9/1/03 7:35:01 PM
|
Tarrifs for values
This speaks to something I think Drew has tried to point out a few times. \r\n\r\n We're willing to impose tarrifs for various sorts of environmental causes. Say, to offset externalities such as pollution and the like. Why is it not permissible to hold that standards such as universal sufferage, human rights, labor unions, healthcare, or public education shouldn't be similarly universally recognized, and charge a tarrif on imports reflective of the status of these acheivements in the exporting country? It's a community-standards basis of imports. \r\n\r\n Of course, there's the question of what could or could not be appropriate for such charges. Would it be appropriate for Italy to charge a 10% tarrif in support of the Roman Catholic Church? Or middle-eastern states a tarrif supporting Islam? Could the US Bible Belt lobby for anti-vice tarrifs against Holland? Where do you draw the line? \r\n\r\n In balance, I think I'd be in favor of a mechanism which would balance costs for socially beneficial business costs born by domestic businesses. --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
Post #116,284
9/1/03 10:39:27 PM
|
easier method. Tax profits
If Nike produces a shoe for $1.00 US, thru an overseas subsiduary, with several "inhouse" trades before reaching US shores with a taxable value of $74 dollars they currently sell that item for $100 and pay income tax on a profit of $26.00 dollars. Tax the entire transaction, $99. A few accounting rule changes would eliminate transactions like that. Name brands could be sold at local cost to "any" buyer, and legitimate purchasers who sell Nike shoes for $21.00 could no longer be prosecuted using copyright laws. Would make the Original factories more productive selling legit Nikes to highest bidder. Nike would shift some production onshore again.
thanx,
bill
America, Love it or give it back
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #116,289
9/1/03 11:12:30 PM
|
Interesting ideas. On Nike.
Imagine the apparel industry adopting accounting tricks like the music or film industry... :-( On Nike, I've never understood how they can manufacture expensive shoes for a few dollars yet not have Microsoft-ish profit margins. Consider [link|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2071248.stm|this] story from the BBC from June 2002: Net profits for the quarter rose 28% to $208m (\ufffd136m) from $162m a year earlier. The rise followed a 31% rise in profits during the previous quarter.
The company also reported an 8% rise in sales to $2.68bn from $2.48bn a year earlier. That's an 8% net profit margin - hardly obscene. Nike's business model seems to require vast expenditures on advertising and sponsorship of teams and individual athletes. It seems as if they would go under if they had to pay first-world prevailing wages to their shoe workers. But perhaps they merely want it to appear that way... Taxing the net value of shoes would give Nike and others incentive to come up with more costs. I don't think it would end up encouraging them to pay their workers more. It's a tough problem. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #116,296
9/1/03 11:52:00 PM
|
Nope. Provide incentives for benefits.
If they can genuinely provide a good product at a profit while meeting other social goals, why penalize them? That's counter to capitalist incentive. \r\n\r\n However, if the equivalent of ten days paid vacation, eight paid national holidays, family leave, employer-paid health care, and an employee investment/retirement program, is $5000 per year for a $10,000 oversees employee, then charge, say, a penalty of double the cost as an incentive to the company to provide these services. \r\n\r\n Note that I'm not saying "charge the domestic US cost of services", but "charge the cost for provision of equivalent services in the manufacturing company. \r\n\r\n If I understand corporate benefits programs correctly, there are already similar structures in place in the US for executive benefits such as health care and stock options programs. If a certain target participation level among staff isn't met, there are penalties applied to the execs. This comes both from statutory/regulatory penalties, and as terms imposed by large investment funds such as CalPERS and TIAA-CREF (a teachers insurance and retirement benefit if I understand correctly. \r\n\r\n Some of this is partial understanding or conjecture. But it's how I understand, and would like to see, things work. --\r\n
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]\r\n
[link|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/]\r\n
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?\r\n
[link|http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/|TWikIWETHEY] -- an experiment in collective intelligence. Stupidity. Whatever.\r\n
\r\n
Keep software free. Oppose the CBDTPA. Kill S.2048 dead.\r\n[link|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html|http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html]\r\n
|
